|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
PD wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:50 am, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 11, 5:10 pm, PD wrote: On Sep 11, 1:20 pm, NoEinstein wrote: Which reference would you suggest I use for this course, Henri?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Folks: It was said: "Physician, heal thyself!" I wish that PD would "teach" himself. When a naive government bestows the name "teacher", they are giving that person license to become an ego maniac. PD is just that. Sad... very sad. — NoEinstein — Which reference do YOU suggest, NoEinstein? Dear PD: Another GREAT question! I recommend COMMON SENSE as your reference of choice. — NoEinstein — Ah. And if *your* common sense and *my* common sense disagree, then how would science resolve that? How good is your common sense, and more importantly, HOW DO YOU KNOW? Hmm? PD's common sense says the shortest physical distance between two points is a curved line. LOL Looks like you lost the "common sense" war. LOL |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 11, 5:03 pm, doug wrote: Xaustein wrote: On 11 sep, 20:44, NoEinstein wrote: (...) http://groups.google.es/group/fr.sci...se_thread/thre... Les calculs de Lorentz (1886) par l'expérience de M.M. de 1887 sont incorrectes. Lisez H.A. Munera, R.T. Cahill, .... Calculations Lorentz (1886) by the experience of M.M. 1887 are incorrect. Read H.A. Munera, R.T. Cahill, ... Cahill is a crank who publishes junk which has no relation to the truth. He says a gas interferometer gives different answers than a vacuum interferometer or a solid interferometer. So is relativity only good for a vacuum or a solid but not in a gas? The alternate explanation is that he does not know what he is doing. That is the opinion of educated people. Au revoir- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Folks: Doug is a persona non grate; and that's the truth! — NoEinstein — Truth bothers you I see. Or maybe you are trying to be as well known a crank as Cahill. You still have a ways to go before you get there. At least he writes stuff that sounds plausible before you go into detail. Your stuff is dead at first sight. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "Spaceman" wrote: doug wrote: He says relativity can be explained because all clocks just malfunction in the exact amount to agree with relativity. This is true of all types of clocks whatever their mechanism. He obviously has no clue but he is fun to play with and watch him rant. First of all it is not true of all clock dingleberry. Pendulum clocks in certain orientations do not come close to the same freakin "relativity" predictions. But for some great "physical reason, they do follow newtons thoughts about them perfectally. You still have not learned how clock work huh? Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) — NoEinstein — He does not like his mistakes pointed out either. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
Spaceman wrote: NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "Spaceman" wrote: doug wrote: He says relativity can be explained because all clocks just malfunction in the exact amount to agree with relativity. This is true of all types of clocks whatever their mechanism. He obviously has no clue but he is fun to play with and watch him rant. First of all it is not true of all clock dingleberry. Pendulum clocks in certain orientations do not come close to the same freakin "relativity" predictions. But for some great "physical reason, they do follow newtons thoughts about them perfectally. You still have not learned how clock work huh? Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) — NoEinstein — True, Thanks for the kick to wake me up. That is what I like. Stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that you cannot hear the truth. It saves you a lot of time that would otherwise be required to actually learn something. Have you learned how cesium clocks work yet? |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote: doug wrote: NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "Spaceman" wrote: doug wrote: He says relativity can be explained because all clocks just malfunction in the exact amount to agree with relativity. This is true of all types of clocks whatever their mechanism. He obviously has no clue but he is fun to play with and watch him rant. First of all it is not true of all clock dingleberry. Pendulum clocks in certain orientations do not come close to the same freakin "relativity" predictions. But for some great "physical reason, they do follow newtons thoughts about them perfectally. You still have not learned how clock work huh? Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) — NoEinstein — He does not like his mistakes pointed out either. You have not pointed out anything except the fact you are clueless about how clocks work. Still waiting for you answer.. What is being counted in the cesium clock to measure time? You say there is no motion occuring being counted. What is not moving, yet being counted? No, the assignment was for you to explain how cesium clocks work. Do you want a lesson in how to use Google? Why don't you use Google to tell me what is "not moving" that is being counted to measure time in the cesium clock? |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote: doug wrote: Spaceman wrote: doug wrote: NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "Spaceman" wrote: doug wrote: He says relativity can be explained because all clocks just malfunction in the exact amount to agree with relativity. This is true of all types of clocks whatever their mechanism. He obviously has no clue but he is fun to play with and watch him rant. First of all it is not true of all clock dingleberry. Pendulum clocks in certain orientations do not come close to the same freakin "relativity" predictions. But for some great "physical reason, they do follow newtons thoughts about them perfectally. You still have not learned how clock work huh? Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) — NoEinstein — He does not like his mistakes pointed out either. You have not pointed out anything except the fact you are clueless about how clocks work. Still waiting for you answer.. What is being counted in the cesium clock to measure time? You say there is no motion occuring being counted. What is not moving, yet being counted? No, the assignment was for you to explain how cesium clocks work. Do you want a lesson in how to use Google? Why don't you use Google to tell me what is "not moving" that is being counted to measure time in the cesium clock? Don't worry, if you go to Google, they have instructions on how to use it. Let us know what you find. So you refuse to look up that the electron motion is what is being counted. Thanks for proof you are either just a troll, or clueless, oh ya.. or both. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On 11 sep, 20:26, NoEinstein wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:50*am, PD wrote: On Sep 10, 8:28 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Sep 10, 2:55 am, PD wrote: On Sep 9, 2:46 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Sep 9, 6:40 pm, PD wrote: On Sep 9, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Sep 9, 2:27 pm, PD wrote in sci.physics.relativity: On Sep 9, 1:01 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote: On Sep 8, 7:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method is obviously flawed. In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind". Even your own colleagues....the less ignorant ones....agree that nothing actually happens to a clock or rod as a result of a speed change. Actually, what's agreed upon is that the physical property does in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to change the property. You find it difficult to imagine how one can happen without the other. But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper! Pentcho Valev Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was 300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone singing songs about him. PD Clever Draper what are you talking about. The travelling clock returns PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy), No, it doesn't. When it returns and is compared with the clock at rest, the rates of the clocks are identical. Don't lie, Clever Draper. When the travelling clock is compared with the clock at rest, they are PHYSICALLY different (according to Divine Albert's Divine Idiocy). No, they show different rates when viewed from different reference frames, but the clocks are physically identical. This is no different than a car having a different kinetic energy when viewed from a different reference frame, but it still being a physically unchanged car. It would help if you understood what Divine Albert actually said, Pentcho. It is only when looked at from different reference frames that the rate changes -- much like kinetic energy changes. the 80m long pole is safely trapped inside the 40m long barn, Not safely, no. If you close the doors, the pole is quite stressed at being trapped inside. We've already discussed this. Clever Draper what are you talking about. I should stop replying to your messages. If you wish. If it is painful to dispel you of your misconceptions about relativity, then avoid pain at all costs. PD- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Folks: Clocks, even those without moving parts, are slowed PHYSICALLY by being impacted by flowing ether. *That is like sitting in a chair and having a fat person sit on your lap. *You tend to move more slowly. *Every part of every atom has an extra amount of flowing ether sitting in its lap when "the clock" goes very fast, or very far. *The slowing is quite real, but is UNRELATED to Einstein's moronic ideas about "space-time". *— NoEinstein —- Spanish: Prefiero el retardo en la propagación de la luz al atravesar un medio transparente (propuesta por Fizeau en su experimento de 1851? y recientemente comprobada por matemáticos italianos) que no el arrastre del éter, propuesta que no presentó Fizeau pero que recordó que Fresnel había propuesto,al analizar su experimento. Los matemáticos italianos han demostrado que el retardo en la propagación de la luz de Fizeau y el arrastre del éter del Fresnel son más acordes uno con el otro que ambos con la propuesta de la suma de velocidades de Lorentz. Saludos Inglish: I prefer the delay in the propagation of light through a transparent (proposed by Fizeau in its experiment in 1851? and recently verified by mathematical Italian) that does not drag the of the ether, proposal that no fizeau but recalled that Fresnel had proposed, to analyze your experiment. The mathematical Italians have shown that the delay in the propagation of the light of Fizeau and drag the eter of Fresnel are more in line with each other both with the proposal of the sum of speeds of Lorentz. Greetings |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
Spaceman wrote: doug wrote: NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 11, 10:56 pm, "Spaceman" wrote: doug wrote: He says relativity can be explained because all clocks just malfunction in the exact amount to agree with relativity. This is true of all types of clocks whatever their mechanism. He obviously has no clue but he is fun to play with and watch him rant. First of all it is not true of all clock dingleberry. Pendulum clocks in certain orientations do not come close to the same freakin "relativity" predictions. But for some great "physical reason, they do follow newtons thoughts about them perfectally. You still have not learned how clock work huh? Dear Spaceman: Just declare Doug a persona non grata, and be done with it. He isn't worth getting all hot and bothered over. :-) — NoEinstein — He does not like his mistakes pointed out either. You have not pointed out anything except the fact you are clueless about how clocks work. Still waiting for you answer.. What is being counted in the cesium clock to measure time? You say there is no motion occuring being counted. What is not moving, yet being counted? No, the assignment was for you to explain how cesium clocks work. Do you want a lesson in how to use Google? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
Spaceman wrote: PD wrote: On Sep 12, 8:50 am, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 11, 5:10 pm, PD wrote: On Sep 11, 1:20 pm, NoEinstein wrote: Which reference would you suggest I use for this course, Henri?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Folks: It was said: "Physician, heal thyself!" I wish that PD would "teach" himself. When a naive government bestows the name "teacher", they are giving that person license to become an ego maniac. PD is just that. Sad... very sad. — NoEinstein — Which reference do YOU suggest, NoEinstein? Dear PD: Another GREAT question! I recommend COMMON SENSE as your reference of choice. — NoEinstein — Ah. And if *your* common sense and *my* common sense disagree, then how would science resolve that? How good is your common sense, and more importantly, HOW DO YOU KNOW? Hmm? PD's common sense says the shortest physical distance between two points is a curved line. LOL Looks like you lost the "common sense" war. LOL My common sense agrees with PD. You are outvoted. Sorry. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Michelson and Morley experiment
On Sep 12, 11:28*am, "Spaceman"
wrote: PD wrote: On Sep 12, 8:50 am, NoEinstein wrote: On Sep 11, 5:10 pm, PD wrote: On Sep 11, 1:20 pm, NoEinstein wrote: Which reference would you suggest I use for this course, Henri?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Folks: It was said: "Physician, heal thyself!" I wish that PD would "teach" himself. When a naive government bestows the name "teacher", they are giving that person license to become an ego maniac. PD is just that. Sad... very sad. — NoEinstein — Which reference do YOU suggest, NoEinstein? Dear PD: Another GREAT question! I recommend COMMON SENSE as your reference of choice. — NoEinstein — Ah. And if *your* common sense and *my* common sense disagree, then how would science resolve that? How good is your common sense, and more importantly, HOW DO YOU KNOW? Hmm? PD's common sense says the shortest physical distance between two points is a curved line. LOL Looks like you lost the "common sense" war. LOL Really? How do you know yours is right? I agree your common sense tells you otherwise, but we all know your common sense is an idiot. So how do you propose science should resolve that? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Michelson and Morley experiment | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 6 | September 12th 08 02:56 PM |
Michelson and Morley experiment | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 9th 08 02:32 AM |
Who lied about the Michelson-Morley experiment? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 10 | July 30th 08 02:26 AM |
MICHELSON-MORLEY AND SAGNAC EXPERIMENTS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 71 | October 22nd 07 11:50 PM |
MICHELSON-MORLEY NULL RESULT AND EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 9 | May 30th 07 08:15 PM |